Nice editorial
 

I still can't understand why some are so rabidly against the development and use of synthetic surfaces. The "dirt" used in tracks is certainly a very specialized, manufactured composition, and most obviously varies from track to track, and quite markedly in many instances. Other countries still successfully use synthetic surfaces in horse racing. The WEG World Championships were just successfully held on dressage and jumping arenas (and practice areas) of synthetic surface.

We'll see how long it takes the dirt track at SA to be deemed "well broken in" and optimal. The interesting part in this transition is the reveal - use of the base.

I don't think people are against the development of these surfaces (especially in areas where weather coule be an extreme issue, ie Turfway park). But when they are forced fed to people with very little or no trial data as in the case with California, is where the problem lies. All of a sudden you had every track on a major circuit changed for no reason because a few people thought it was better. Then throw into the mix the probelms (especially Santa Anita) that the tracks had with their new surfaces.

Toootally the same thing.

Have you read the tons of posts explaining why people don't like it, or do you just react to them without trying to see things from the other side?

you had to ask this???

Speak for yourself. I blew a brutal photo in the Dressage event.

I can't wait to hear TFF's analysis on how the rider blew it.

I think California turned out to be more "extreme" than Turfway, weather- and use-wise. And you most obviously can't lump the performance of the different surfaces together, even in CA.

The point is that synthetic surfaces can and are being developed and used at elite levels, and have been for some time. Nobody (I hope) thinks the technical requirements of the surfaces for different disciplines are the same.

:zz: Other side? You mean the side of "not all synthetics are the devil?"

Yeah, I have read the tons of posts. Plus alot of the scientific data. Hence my post why I still can't understand the blanket hate by some.

Did I miss it and California had some kind of deep freeze where it's been under 30 degrees within the last 4 years? Otherwise, rain doesn't count in my book as extreme.

Slow day at work? :rolleyes:

You missed or forgot about all that about the humidity, temperature changes (heat, large degree to temp variation), etc. compared to previous installations of the product (ProRide) in the east? Why they changed the composition to try and get it right? Okay.

Your attempt at a point is completely undermined by your second sentence. The requirements of a surface for racing are so incredibly different from a dressage competition (omg lol) that to compare the two is absolutely insane. Pwetty howsies pwancing awound and horses racing with millions of dollars in wagers on the line have nothing to do with each other.

Your attempt at sarcasm regarding "pwetty howsies", and the attempt to join the physics of surface composition with gambling just proves my point.

The "physics of surface composition" (maybe a bit of chemistry too) and gambling are directly connected when the first affects the second.

Of course gambling is affected by gambler's ability to predict results on the (any) surface.

That has nothing to do with my post, however.

I think you answered your own question. These surfaces were basically jammed down everyone's throat, without any kind of credible basis. Then they have trouble with the surfaces (at some tracks) because of rain (and according to you they also had to be tweaked due to heat and humidity). It's been said here a million times, you would think that "all weather track", would mean that the track could handle all weather. And you still don't understand why many in the community haven't embraced synthetic surfaces?
Not to mention the affect that it has on handicapping. While some people like it, it seems like the majority of people would rather just have a conventional dirt track.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider humidity and tempature changes above 50 degrees as extreme. I personally feel like these tracks are good idea in areas that expierence extreme cold conditions, but in California where it seems to be fast and firm most of the time I just don't see any need or reason for them.

I wish some tracks would install artificial turf courses.

So you are not against synthetic tracks completely or absolutely. We seem to hold the same viewpoint.

How long do you think it will take before SA new dirt track is considered reliable and settled?

You're trying to backtrack now and say that your mention of dressage has no connection to racing because surface concerns in the two "sports" are very different. . . ummm. . . then why did you bring it up? I guess your point is that "synthetic surfaces can and are being developed and used at elite levels."

Fair enough, but irrelevant when we're talking about racing for the exact reason that I've mentioned - gambling. People shouldn't be subjected to gambling on surfaces that are still in the testing or development stage. . . especially when there's another option out there that has withstood the test of time and proven to be superior.

"Developing" a synthetic surface for dressage just doesn't involve the same stakes or subject as many people to something that is unfair or not thoroughly researched and perfected.

I have always been against synthetics from the perspective of a fan, because it's clear that they interfere with the exercise of determining which horse is best in a given race. They simply reward mediocrity and often hinder true dirt ability. Richard's Kid is the poster boy for the ridiculousness of synthetics.

I have, in the past, been a fan of them from a gambling perspective--particularly at Keeneland and in the Breeders' Cups at Santa Anita--because they introduce another element into handicapping. But with the way Keeneland has played this meet, the benefits are lost. It has been even more unpredictable and biased.

Anyone who would think that is a moron.

Don't forget what synthetic tracks replaced out there, and the major reason why.

Getting SA back to dirt will be a really revealing project (in a good way), to see what a dirt track created in this day and age can be. Many said the old dirt tracks should just be torn up and have the base redone, then the cushion replaced, rather than go to synthetic. I never could find a good description of what the SA old base looked like as they took it out (how badly it was torn up, holes, etc)

Yup. I brought it up because the distaste for synthetic surfaces is most pronounced in America, and appears, for many people, to be unrelated to the science of them.

I feel like that there are needed/good idea at some tracks who want to conduct racing during the winter. So there is a place in the sport for them.

My main gripe is the way that they were implemented in California. I think all fans of the sport would accept them more if there was some sort of concrete proof that the surfaces are safer for the horses. That's what the purpose was supposed to be, safety. But that really doesn't seem like the case. So the whole California circuit was made to jump through hoops for no reason, costing them money to change surfaces and possible lose buisness from gamblers who refuse to bet horses that run on the stuff. Not to mention the days lost because of drainage and other problems.

As far as the new surface goes, I really want to believe that they will get it right the first time.

It will be mixed to specification (they had a hard time finding the type of dirt they wanted, but I think they have now) but it will still have to "settle in".

I think it will change continuously over the first season or three (as it picks up moisture, is worked, etc), but we'll see. I doubt the way it plays the first month or two is the way it will play forever.

How many elite races are run on synthetics in other parts of the world? Aside from the braintrust in Dubai, who could phuck up a wet dream, what other country runs their elite races on synthetic?

Before anyone says Canada, they don't have a single grade 1 race run on their main track.

Queens Plate?

Synthetics are great in places that experience lots of rain and don't get extremely cold. Turfway's track is far better when wet. When it is the dead of winter and you cant put water on it, the track is terrible. SA's surface was screwed up because it was improperly installed. That being said, the issues that are associated with synthetics would plague them regardless. Keenelands track has completely changed since last fall but they swear that they havent done anything to it. Sure they havent...

Not a grade 1.

Restricted :tro:

oh help me nooooooo! keep that idea quiet. the best horses in the world now almost all run on grass. all weather is a joke...in cali, there is no weather. it gets hot and that crap melts. give me a break. i've seen the track here close , due to heat but it doesn't melt. the article was right and so good. Its just a coincidence that 3 m wanted a fake track...yeah, i'm buying that and the guy that lost all his money in the madoff deal.....had nothing (invested) to do with that pipe dream out there....oh.....ok.

I can imagine the screams of horror if America decided to go to all turf racing, like the majority of the rest of the world.

Nice deflection.

Deflection of what? Grade 1's run on synthetic in other countries? Other countries run primarily turf - what does that question show except nothing? That's not comparable to synthetic use in the US. They don't need synthetic for daily racing, they have turf. Synthetic is a weather relief and training surface. Turf - in any country - doesn't have the injury rate our dirt racing has.

I'm looking forward to SA being put back to dirt, and watching the injury rate over the next few years. I think the idea that the bases (faults, holes, frost heaves, etc) on all these old tracks can be the problem is valid. If so, we won't see a "typical dirt injury rate" on the new SA track over the next few years.

I have to admit I did not read the editorial (really an opinion piece) until just now. It is not about synthetics, except as a metaphor, IMO. Did you read it yet?

Deflection of the question. Try and follow along. We don't need synthetics either for daily racing. Which is the main point of it all. People have made a lot of money selling the crap here, but there is no need for it.

FTFY.

Although it isn't the same, synthetics plays too close to turf for me. If turf horses can invade traditional main track races like the SA Cap, HGC, and Pacific Classic and win, then why do we need a turf course? It just dilutes the turf fields if anything.

I realize not every horse that runs good on turf runs the same on synthetics (The Usual QT is the first one that comes to mind). But a lot do. It seems redundant to use 2 tracks that a lot of turf horses could interchange between so easily.

We're the main country for dirt racing, and we are wedded to it and refuse to change. Other countries run on a horses natural surface, turf. So it goes.